Bangalore District Court
Sabita Panda vs Karunesh on 4 June, 2025
KABC0A0020062014
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgments in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-29) MAYOHALL, BENGALURU
Dated this the 4th day of June, 2025.
PRESENT:
Sri BALAPPA APPANNA JARAGU, B.Sc., LL.B.,
XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.25734/2014
PLAINTIFF : Mrs. Sabita Panda,
W/o. Kedar Nath Panda,
Aged about 44 years,
Residing at 19733 E Fair P1
Aurora, CO, 80016, USA.
Also at:
No.23, 13th Cross,
Kaggadasapura C.V. Raman
Nagar Post, Bangalore-560 093.
Represented by her General
Power of Attorney Holder
Mr. Choudhury Sanjib Kumar Das.
(By Sri M.G.S. Kamal, Advocate)
Cont'd..
2 O.S.No.25734/2014
-VERSUS-
DEFENDANTS : 1. Karunesh,
S/o. Late B.M. Madaiah,
Aged about 39 years,
Residing at No.607, 15th Cross,
6th Phase, J.P. Nagar,
Bangalore - 560 078.
2. Smt. Lakshmi,
W/o. Srinivasa Reddy,
Aged about 39 years,
Residing at No.39/8-12,
7th Main, Indiranagar,
Bangalore - 560 093.
3. Rudraswamy,
S/o. Late Hucheeraiah,
Aged about 49 years,
Residing at Kanchugal
Bandemutt Post,
Magadi Taluk - 562 120.
4. M/s Adarsh Developers
No.10, Vittal Mallya Road,
Bangalore - 560 001,
Represented by its Director.
(D.1 : Ex-parte)
(D.2 by Sri R.R.D., Advocate)
(D.4 by Sri G.C., Advocate)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Institution of the Suit : 30-04-2014
Nature of the Suit (Suit on : Declaration & Injunction Suit
pronote, Suit for declaration
and possession, Suit for
injunction etc,)
Date of the commencement : 13-03-2024
of recording of the evidence
3 O.S.No.25734/2014
Date on which the Judgment : 04-06-2025
was pronounced
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Year/s Month/s Day/s
----------------------------------
Total duration : 11years, 01month, 11days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(BALAPPA APPANNA JARAGU)
XXVIII Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This suit is instituted by the Plaintiff against the defendants for the relief of declaration to declare, sale deed dated 22.02.2010 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 is not binding on plaintiff to the extent of plaint schedule property. The plaintiff has further sought for vacant physical possession of suit property from defendants. The plaintiff has also sought for consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their agents from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property. The plaintiff further sought for damages and cost of suit by defendants.
4 O.S.No.25734/2014
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as under:
That, plaintiff purchased suit schedule property under registered sale deed dated 23.06.2004 from defendant No.2. After purchase, plaintiff got khatha of suit property in his name from BBMP and he is paying tax pertaining to suit property to concerned authority. Plaintiff is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of suit property, which forms part of land bearing Sy.No.98/1B, measuring 2 acre 15 guntas of Doddakanahalli village. Originally said property belonged to family of Smt.Lakshmma and Rathnamma. They have sold 1 acre of land in total extent in favour of defendant No.1 under registered sale deed dated 17.06.2002. Thereafter, Smt. Lakshmma and Rathnamma have sold another 1 acre 12 guntas including 2 guntas of karab land in Sy.No.98/1B in favour of defendant No.1 under registered sale deed dated 27.06.2000. Smt.Lakshmma and Rathnamma have sold 1 acre 15 guntas including 2 guntas of karab in Sy.No.98/1B to defendant No.1 under sale deed dated 01.07.2002. Later on, defendant No.1 sold 1 acre 29 guntas out of 3 acre 27 guntas in Sy.No.98/1B in 5 O.S.No.25734/2014 favour of 2nd defendant under sale deed dated 07.01.2004. Defendant No.2 formed layout consisting of 48 of sites of different dimensions. Plaintiff has purchased plaint schedule property from defendant No.2 and he is in exclusive possession of sale. In the month of March 2013, when plaintiff visited suit property after returning from United states of America, he noticed certain activities on suit property. On enquiry, plaintiff learnt that, defendant No.2 without having any right or interest has illegally executed two sale deeds dated 22.02.2010 in favour of defendant No.3 by conveying entire 1 acre 29 guntas and 4 guntas of attached karab land in Sy.No.98/1B to defendant No.3. Sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 is not binding on plaintiff. Defendant No.3 and 4 with their ulterior motive have trespassed into suit schedule property and constructing compound wall. On these pleadings, the plaintiff has prayed to decree the suit as prayed in plaint.
3. In response to the service of suit summons, defendant No. 2 to 4 have tendered their appearance 6 O.S.No.25734/2014 before the court through their respective counsels. The defendants No.3 and 4 have filed their written statement and contest their case. Even after sufficient opportunities, defendant No.2 has not filed written statement. Even after service of the summons, the defendants No.1 has not tendered his appearance before the court through his counsel and contested the suit, consequently he placed ex-parte.
4. The contents of written statement of defendant No.3 in brief are as under :-
That, suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. This court has no jurisdictional registered sale deed standing in favour of defendant No.3 is not binding on plaintiff as suit property is not in existence. It is specifically contended that, defendant No.3 is bonafide purchaser of property for value from defendant No.2 under registered sale deed dated 22.02.2010. Property is not converted land. Alleged sale deed in favour of plaintiff may be sham and nominal sale deed, out of said sale deed, plaintiff will not derive any title or right. Suit property is not in existence and 7 O.S.No.25734/2014 plaintiff filed suit in respect of non existing property based on created documents. Alleged layout produced by plaintiff not recognized by any authority. After purchase of property, defendant No.3 mutated khatha in his name and applied for conversion land into non agriculture purpose. Nature of land has been changed from agriculture to status of non agricultural industrial Hightech purpose. The property purchased by defendant No.3 is totally different from alleged property of plaintiff. Plaintiff has approached court with malafide intention to harass defendants. Defendant No.3 has invested huge amount to develop suit property by borrowing loan from financial institutions at huge rate of interest. Plaintiff has not paid proper court fees. On these grounds, it is requested to dismiss the suit filed by plaintiff with exemplary costs.
5. The contents of written statement of defendant No.4 in brief are as under :-
That, suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Alleged power of attorney dated 07.04.2014 is created and concocted one and same do 8 O.S.No.25734/2014 not authorises person who verified and signed plaint to prosecute case. Plaintiff filed suit in respect of non-
existing property and no such house list khata was in existence in the name of defendant No.2. Sale deed relied by plaintiff dated 23.06.2004 is fictitious and defendant No.2 was not holding alleged house list in respect of alleged property. Hence, lawful title or possession of property not been conveyed to plaintiff. Plaintiff not in possession and enjoyment of suit property based on alleged sale deed. It is not disputed, Smt. Lakshmamma and Rathnamma have sold land in Sy.No.98/1B in favour of defendant No.1 under registered sale deeds and it also not in disputed defendant No.2 sold property in favour of defendant No.3. Defendant No.2 never formed private layout consisting of 48 sites of different dimensions out of land measuring 1 acre 29 guntas in Sy.No.98/1B of Doddakanahalli Village. It is highly unimaginable to form 48 sites in 1 acres 29 guntas. Private layout plan produced plaintiff is created and concocted for the purpose of present case. Plaintiff never in possession of suit property by virtue of alleged sale deed dated 9 O.S.No.25734/2014 23.06.2004. Defendant No.3 being absolute owner of land bearing Sy.No.98/1B measuring 1 acre 29 guntas lawfully authorised defendant No.4 to develop the same. Hence, act of defendant No.3 and 4 in putting compound Wall and to do any other development work of their choice is nothing to do with plaintiff. Plaintiff has no right to question correctness of title deeds of defendant No.3 and to prevent him from using land at his choice. Suit property and land purchased by defendant No.4 under sale deeds dated 22.02.2010 are totally different and distinct. Plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as prayed in plaint. On these grounds, it is requested to dismiss the suit filed by plaintiff.
6. On the basis of above pleadings of both parties, this court has framed the following: :-
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the sale deeds dated 22.10.2010 are not binding on the plaintiff to the extent of the suit schedule property?10 O.S.No.25734/2014
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are in unlawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?
4. Whether the Court fee paid is sufficient?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as sought for?
6. What order or decree?
6. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the General Power of Attorney of plaintiff - Choudhury Sanjib Kumar Das examined himself as PW1 and produced in all 21 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P.21. The defendant No.1 and also Power of Attorney Holder of defendants No.3 and partner of defendant No.4 examined himself as DW.1 and and produced 7 documents as Exs.D.1 to D.7.
7. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff and learned counsel for defendant and I have perused the case records.
8. My answers to the above issues are as under-
ISSUE No.1 - In the negative;
ISSUE No.2 - In the negative;
11 O.S.No.25734/2014ISSUE No.3 - In the negative;
ISSUE No.4 - In the affirmative;
ISSUE No.5 - In the negative;
ISSUE No.6 - As per final order, for the following -
REASONS
9. ISSUES No.1 :- As per case made out by plaintiff, he is claiming to be absolute owner of suit schedule property based on sale deed dated 23.06.2004 executed by defendant No.2 in his favour. Admittedly, defendant No.2 who executed sale deed dated 23.06.2004 in respect of suit property as per Ex.P.2 in favour of plaintiff has not filed her written statement and contested suit. It is the defendants No.3 and 4 who contested suit by filing their written have contended, there is no existence of suit property in land bearing Sy.No.98/1B, measuring to an extent of 2 acres 19 guntas of Doddakannali Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore. It is further contended, plaintiff has filed suit on non-existing property based on created and invalid documents.
12 O.S.No.25734/2014
10. On going through pleadings and contents of Exs.P.4 to P.6 it is clear that, land bearing Sy.No.98 measuring 3 acre 27 guntas including 4 guntas of kharab land of Doddakanahalli Vilalge belonged to one K.T. Narayana Reddy S/o. Doddathimma Reddy. After his death, name of K.N. Shankara Reddy entered and after death of said K.N. Shankara Reddy, name of Smt. Lakshamamma and Smt. Rathanamma entered to Sy.No.98, new Sy.No.98/1B measuring 3 acre 27 guntas. It is also not in dispute between parties to suit that, after death of K.N. Shankara Reddy, Smt. Lakshmamma and Smt. Rathnamma have succeeded to Sy.No.98/1B measuring to an extent of 3 acres 27 gutnas, situated at Doddakannalli Village. These facts, have been suggested by learned counsel for plaintiff, during cross-examination of defendant No.1, who examined as D.W.1.
11. It is worth to note here that, Ex.P.4 is sale deed dated 17.06.2002 wherein Smt. Lakshmamma and Smt. Rathnamma together have sold 1 acre of property out of total extent of Sy.No.98/1B in favour of defendant 13 O.S.No.25734/2014 No.1 - Karunesh. As per Ex.P.5 is sale deed dated 27.06.2002, Smt. Lakshmamma and Smt. Rathnamma have sold 1 acre 12 guntas including 2 guntas of phot karab land in Sy.No.98/1B in favour of defendant No.1. Again, as per Ex.P.6 is sale deed dated 01.07.2002, those Smt. Lakshmamma and Smt. Rathnamma have sold 1 acre 15 guntas including 2 guntas phot karab land in Sy.No.98/1B in faovur of defendant No.1. It means by executing Exs.P.4 to P.6, Smt. Lakshmamma and Smt. Rathnamma who acquired property from Narayana Reddy have sold entire extent of 3 acres 27 guntas in Sy.No.98/1B in favour of defendant No.1. The plaintiff has produced encumbrance certificate of Sy.No.98/1B as per Ex.P.9 wherein transaction entered between Smt. Lakshmamma and Smt. Rathnamma with defendant No.1 wherein they have sold entire extent of 3 acres 27 guntas of land in Sy.No.98/1B under different sale deeds as per Exs.P.4 to P.6 have been clearly mentioned.
12. As already discussed, plaintiff is claiming to be absolute owner of suit schedule property which are 14 O.S.No.25734/2014 residential sites bearing No.35 and 36, old property No.98/1B, House List Khata No.120/2/98/1B/35 and No.120/2/98/1B/36 forming part of land in Sy.No.98/1B, situated at Doddakannalli Village based on sale deed dated 23.06.2004. As per recital of Ex.P.2
- sale deed dated 23.06.2004, defendant No.2 sold suit property to plaintiff.
13. The power of attorney holder of plaintiff who examined as P.W.1 in his evidence before court has deposed, at the time of purchase of suit property, khata of suit property were standing in the name of defendant No.2. Admittedly, plaintiff has not produced document to show, at the time of execution Ex.P.2 sale deed, khata of suit property were standing in the name of defendant No.2. The plaintiff has produced khata extract of suit property as per Ex.P.3. On perusal of said document, name of plaintiff has been shown as owner and possession of suit property. Further it is mentioned total extent of suit property measuring to an extent of 55 X 80 square feet, which is vacant land. 15 O.S.No.25734/2014
14. On careful perusal of schedule property mentioned as per Ex.P.2, it is mentioned suit sites No.35 and 36 in old property No.98/1B. Sy.No.98/1B not mentioned in schedule to Ex.P.2. Even on careful perusal of recital of Ex.P.2 nowhere it is mentioned Sy.No.98/1B old Sy.No.98 of Doddakannalli Village was converted into non-agricultural purpose by competent authority and layout said to have been formed in said survey number was approved by competent authority.
15. The P.W.1 in his cross-examination has deposed, land bearing Sy.No.98/1B of Doddakannalli Village converted into non-agricultural purpose. It is say of P.W.1 in his cross-examination that, he will try to produce said conversion order pertaining to Sy.No.98 before court. Admittedly, on careful perusal of documents produced by plaintiff, he has not produced conversion order passed by competent authority in respect of land bearing Sy.No.98 old property No.98/1B of Doddakannalli Village which was owned by defendant No.2. Further, absolutely there is no material placed by plaintiff to show based on private layout alleged to have 16 O.S.No.25734/2014 been formed by defendant No.2 in Sy.No.98, name of defendant No.2 entered to house list khata No.120/2/98/1B/35 and 120/2/98/1B/36 of Doddakanahalli Village.
16. It is fact that, as per Ex.P.8 dated 07.01.2007, defendant No.1 having purchased property from Smt. Lakshmamma and Smt. Rathnamma sold 1 acre 29 guntas in total extent of Sy.No.98/1B in favour of defendant No.2. It is the case of plaintiff that, after purchase of property from defendant No.1 as per Ex.P.8, defendant No.2 formed sites in 1 acre, 29 guntas and sold suit sites in favour of plaintiff as per Ex.P.2.
17. As already discussed, absolutely there is no material placed by plaintiff to show, defendant No.2 had converted Sy.No.98/1B to an extent of 1 acre 29 guntas for non-agricultural purpose and formed layout in which suit property of plaintiff are existed. It is significant to note here that, an attempt was made by plaintiff to produce proposed layout map in Sy.No.98/1B before court. It is fact that, said layout has been admittedly not approved by competent authority. 17 O.S.No.25734/2014 It is true, suit sites No.35 and 36 have been mentioned in layout plan, but there are in total 48 sites of different dimensions have been shown in layout map. Further, in respect of area of layout it is mentioned total sites area is 1,47,000 square feet. Even total extent of area as shown in said layout map, definitely exceeds total area of 1 acre 29 guntas in Sy.No.98/1B.
18. The P.W.1 in his cross-examination has pleaded, ignorance about total site area of 1,47,000 square feet mentioned in layout plan. It is also gathered from said record that, it is highly impossible to form 48 sites of different dimensions as mentioned in said layout map in area measuring 1 acre 29 guntas of Sy.No.98/1B. Under these circumstance, when layout map produced by plaintiff in support of his case which does not bear seal and signature of competent authority and same is not approved by local authority or competent authority, said document cannot be taken into consideration to accept contention of plaintiff that, defendant No.2 formed suit sites in Sy.No.98/1B and thereby sold it in favour of plaintiff as per Ex.P.2. In addition there is no 18 O.S.No.25734/2014 revenue documents or khata extract of suit properties in the name of defendant No.2 at relevant point of time, when she had executed sale deed as per Ex.P.2 in favour of plaintiff.
19. It is significant to note here that, when plaintiff failed to establish by documentary evidence that, defendant No.2 had formed layout in which suit sites are existed sale deed as per Ex.P.2 executed by mentioning suit sites existed in Sy.No.98/1B of Doddakannalli Village has no legal sanctity. As and when there is no approved layout plan issued by competent authority in respect of suit sites, very identification of suit sites with specific boundaries and measurement out of total extent of Sy.No.98/1B is highly impossible.
20. It is not case of plaintiff that, out of total extent of 1 acre 29 guntas of agricultural land, an extent of suit property with boundaries sold by defendant No.2 in his favour. When plaintiff is claiming defendant No.2 had sold sites bearing khata number, it is incumbent upon plaintiff to establish with sanction of 19 O.S.No.25734/2014 local authority or competent authority layout in Sy.No.98/1B to an extent of 1 acre 29 guntas formed by defendant No.2 and thereafter by entering her name to those sites in concerned records he has sold suit property in her favour.
21. It is well settled law that, when identification of suit property is not possible and same is in dispute, plaintiff cannot be declared as absolute owner based on recital and schedule of property as mentioned in Ex.P.2. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in the negative.
22. ISSUE NO.2 :- It is significant to note here that, it is contention of plaintiff and same is deposed by P.W.1 that, sale deeds dated 22.02.2010 are not binding on plaintiff to the extent of suit property. On the other hand, defendants No.3 and 4 have contended as per Ex.D.2, sale deed dated 22.02.2010, defendant No.2 sold 1 acre 10 guntas in Sy.No.98/1B in favour of defendant No.3. Likewise, as per Ex.D.3 sale deed dated 22.02.2010, defendant No.2 sold 19 guntas in Sy.No.98/1B in favour of defendant No.3.
23. As already discussed, as per Ex.P.8, defendant No.1 sold 1 acre 29 guntas in Sy.No.98/1B in favour of 20 O.S.No.25734/2014 defendant No.2. Subsequently, defendant No.2 having acquired right over 1 acre 29 guntas in Sy.No.98/1B as per Ex.P.8 sold 1 acre 29 gutnas in Sy.No.98/1B in favour of defendant No.3 as per Exs.D.2 and D.3.
24. It is the case of plaintiff that, as defendant No.2 already sold suit sites in his favour under Ex.P.2 which is prior to execution of Exs.D.2 and D.3, defendant No.2 has no right, title to sell property to an extent of 1 acre 29 gunta in Sy.No.98/1B in favour of defendant No.3. It is true, Ex.P.2 in favour of plaintiff is much prior to Exs.D.2 and D.3 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3, herein the case, as already discussed, there is no prima facie material placed on record to show, defendant No.2 has converted Sy.No.98/1B to an extent of 1 acre 29 guntas into non- agricultural purpose and layout was formed in which suit sites existed and said layout has been approved by competent authority. Under these circumstance, plaintiff has to establish, he acquired title over suit property which is part and parcel of total extent of Sy.No.98/1B, as such defendant No.2 has no right to 21 O.S.No.25734/2014 sell 1 acre 29 guntas in Sy.No.98/1B in favour of defendant No.3. Further, there is no material placed on record by plaintiff to substantiate, based on conversion of land into non-agricultural purpose by defendant No.2, her name entered into suit sites in concerned records maintained by local authority. As such, plaintiff is not permitted to contend sale deed as per Exs.D.2 and D.3 dated 22.02.2010 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 are not binding on him to the extent of suit property in total extent of Sy.No.98/1B. Hence, I answer issue No.2 in the negative.
25. ISSUE NO.3 :- It is contention of plaintiff that, defendants are not in lawful possession and enjoyment of suit property. It is worth to note here that, after purchase of property, defendant No.3 got converted 1 acre 27 guntas in Sy.No.98/1B into non-agricultural purpose. These facts or evident from Ex.D.6 conversion order issued by competent authority. The P.W.1 in his cross-examination has pleaded, his ignorance as to in which survey number exactly suit properties are existed. It is fact that, as per Exs.D.2 and D.3, 22 O.S.No.25734/2014 defendant No.3 has purchased 1 acre 29 guntas in Sy.No.98/1B from defendant No.2 and thereafter converted 1 acre 27 guntas in Sy.No98/1B into non- agricultural purpose as per Ex.D.6. It is pleaded in the plaint and same is deposed by P.W.1 that, plaintiff having come from USA during month of February 2013 and in the March 2013 visited suit property and noticed certain activities on land comprising of plaint schedule property have been taken up by defendants No.3 and 4. Further, it is deposed by P.W.1 that, on enquiry, plaintiff learnt that, entire land in Sy.No.98/1B measuring 1 acre 29 guntas has been purchased by defendant No.4 from defendant No.3. The defendant No.3 entered into certain arrangement with the defendant No.4 for development of said land.
26. As already discussed by virtue of Exs.D.2 and D.3, defendant No.3 purchased 1 acre 29 guntas in Sy.No.98/1B from defendant No.2 and as per Ex.D.6 said land is converted into non-agricultural purpose. Under these circumstance, possession of defendant over said extent of property cannot be termed as their 23 O.S.No.25734/2014 unlawful possession and enjoyment over suit property. Hence, I answer Issue No.3 in the negative.
27. ISSUE NO.4 :- It is to be noted here, this issue has been treated by court as preliminary issue and court by its order dated 28.05.2018 has answered said issue No.4 in the affirmative and plaintiff was directed to pay necessary court fees and same was complied by plaintiff. Hence, I answer issue No.4 in the affirmative.
28. ISSUE NO.5 :- As already discussed, plaintiff has failed to establish his title and possession over suit property based on Ex.P.2. Absolutely there is no material on record to show, land bearing Sy.No.98/1B to an extent of 1 acre 29 guntas was converted into non- agricultural purpose and layout formed in which suit property existed and said layout in which suit property existed was approved by competent authority. On the other hand, defendant No.1 has sold property in favour of defendant No.2, later on defendant No.2 sold 1 acre 29 gutnas in Sy.No.98/1B as per Exs.D.2 and D.3 in favour of defendant No.3. The defendant No.3 as per 24 O.S.No.25734/2014 order of competent authority converted said property into non-agricultural purpose. It is defendant No.3 and 4 are in possession and enjoyment of total extent of 1 acre 29 guntas in Sy.No.98/1B. Plaintiff has failed to establish, defendants are in unlawful possession and enjoyment of suit property. Hence, plaintiff is not entitle for any reliefs as prayed in plaint. Hence, I answer Issue No.5 in the negative.
29. ISSUES No.6 :- In view of the above said findings on Issue Nos. 1 to 5, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed & computerized by her, corrected and signed by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 4th day of June, 2025).
(BALAPPA APPANNA JARAGU) XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru. 25 O.S.No.25734/2014 ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:-
Examined on:
P.W.1 : Choudhury Sanjib Kumar Das 13-03-2024
2. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:-
Ex.P.1 : Certified copy of General Power of Attorney dated 14.01.2014.
Ex.P.2 : Certified copy of sale deed
dated 23.06.2004.
Ex.P.3 : Certified copy of khata and
tax paid receipts.
Ex.P.4 : Certified copy of sale deed
dated 17.06.2002.
Ex.P.5 : Certified copy of sale deed
dated 27.06.2002.
Ex.P.6 : Certified copy of sale deed
dated 01.07.2002.
Ex.P.7 : Certified copy of mutation extract.
Ex.P.8 : Certified copy of sale deed
dated 07.01.2004.
Exs.P.9 : Certified copy of encumbrance certificate.
and P.10
Ex.P.11 : Certified copy of sale deed
dated 22.02.2010.
Ex.P.12 : Certified copy of confirmation deed
dated 11.12.2012.
Ex.P.13 : Certified copy of Cancellation deed
dated 06.12.2012.
Ex.P.14 : Certified copy of Cancellation Deed
dated 10.12.2012.
Ex.P.15 : Certified copy of Confirmation Deed
dated 11.12.2012.
26 O.S.No.25734/2014
Ex.P.16 : Certified copy of Confirmation Deed
dated 06.12.2012.
Exs.P.17 : Tax paid receipts.
to P.21
3.LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT:-
Examined on:
D.W.1 : B.M. Karunesh 29-08-2024.
4.LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANT:-
Ex.D.1 : Certified copy of General Power of Attorney dated 26.05.2005.
Ex.D.2 : Certified copy of sale deed
dated 22.02.2010.
Ex.D.3 : Certified copy of another sale deed
dated 22.02.2010.
Ex.D.4 : Records of rights of Survey No.98/1b1-
10 in number.
Ex.D.5 : Records of rights of Survey No.98/1b2-
10 in number.
Exs.D.6 : Conversion order.
and P.7
(BALAPPA APPANNA JARAGU)
XXVIII Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru. 27 O.S.No.25734/2014